Zoning official proposes tying parking variances to affordability; board seeks more data

Zoning Administrator Larry Badner told the Board of Appeals he is exploring a new policy that would allow him to impose affordability conditions as part of some parking variances, arguing data show a clear link between household income and car ownership.

Badner said his memo and a supplemental chart (drawn from 2000 census data and a Bay Area calculation by the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California) suggest areas where households at 60–80% of median income have substantially lower car‑ownership rates, and that “as housing becomes more affordable, there is less parking demand.” He said a cited Bay Area estimate suggested about 1.3 parking spaces per unit at the 60% median‑income level and that local San Francisco rates would likely be even lower.

The zoning administrator cautioned he does not want to make this a citywide legislative mandate. Instead, he proposed issuing a zoning administrator’s bulletin with guidelines staff would apply case‑by‑case when a parking variance is sought, arguing variances must remain for exceptional circumstances.

Commissioners pressed Badner on legal nexus and scope. Several members said criterion 4 (the variance must not be materially detrimental to public welfare or injurious to nearby property) may already provide sufficient grounding but asked for more localized data and clearer criteria on when affordability conditions should apply. Commissioner Garcia urged disaggregating data by census tract so the Board can show a close geographic link between lower incomes and reduced parking demand; Badner agreed that tract‑level analysis would strengthen a nexus argument.

Board members also raised enforcement and equity concerns: how would the rule treat existing occupied units with leases, in‑law units where owners live on‑site, and higher‑income neighborhoods where applying an affordability condition could unfairly prevent legalization of long‑standing housing? Badner said staff has discussed options such as triggering affordability only on new units created after vacancy or sale, or applying the rule only where on‑street parking conditions demonstrate a measurable impact.

Members of the public and the Planning Commission had mixed reactions in earlier briefings. Several neighborhood commenters urged transit proximity and other alternatives to mandatory affordability conditions — for example tandem or stacked parking — and warned that too‑broad application could discourage owners from legalizing units.

The Board did not vote on a policy. Badner said he will draft a zoning administrator bulletin reflecting the discussion and return with more localized data, proposed criteria and recommended implementation steps, including how to treat existing leases and whether notice or additional public review will be required.